The "Childmyths" blog is a spin-off of Jean Mercer's book "Thinking Critically About Child Development: Examining Myths & Misunderstandings"(Sage, 2015; third edition). The blog focuses on parsing mistaken beliefs that can influence people's decisions about childrearing-- for example, beliefs about day care, about punishment, about child psychotherapies, and about adoption.
See also http://thestudyofnonsense.blogspot.com

Concerned About Unconventional Mental Health Interventions?

Thursday, February 12, 2015

"Conversion Therapy" Is Judged Consumer Fraud

Over the last several years, several states, including
New Jersey and California, have passed legislation prohibiting mental health
professionals from using “conversion therapy” with minors. “Conversion therapy”
is an alternative mental health treatment that purports to change same-sex
attraction to opposite-sex attraction through various techniques like cuddling,
nude exercise, and beating an object representing one’s mother. These methods
have not shown to be effective in accomplishing anything but misery for
clients, and this is not surprising, as current thought regards homosexuality
as an unlearned behavior, a normal aspect of human sexuality, and a
characteristic of a significant portion of any population. Considering how
little professional organizations like to be regulated from outside, it is
significant that national professional groups have supported the prohibition of
the treatment and have emphasized their positions about the nature of same-sex
attraction, about the inappropriateness of attempts to change it, and about the
ineffectiveness of “conversion” methods.

Nevertheless, there are still many states where “conversion
therapy” is not prohibited, and even where prohibitions exist, they exist only
for licensed mental health professionals working with minors. Members of the
clergy are not prohibited from using the treatment for minors, and persons over
18 may choose for the treatment to be done by licensed mental health
practitioners if they wish.

Because there are many ongoing concerns about “conversion
therapy” and its unlicensed practitioners, some organizations have chosen to
approach the problem by means of lawsuits. An important judicial finding-- one that I hope will be a real breakthrough—was
reported today at www.philly.news.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20150212_N_J_judge_calls_gay_conversion_theapy_claims_fraud.html.
This story, also reported by the Southern Poverty Law Center (www.splcenter.org), described a lawsuit
brought by S.P.L.C. on behalf of several victims against the organization Jews
Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH), a New Jersey group that
advocates and offers “conversion therapy”.

In the course of this ongoing suit, Superior Court
Judge Peter Barsio has ruled that JONAH may not state that homosexuality is a
mental disorder or disease. He also ruled that reporting “success” statistics
when advertising or selling “conversion therapy” is in violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. According to the Philadelphia
Inquirer report, the Southern Poverty Law Center plans to bring evidence
that JONAH defrauded clients by advertising its services in terms of
discredited theories.

As far as I know, this is the first case in which a
treatment billed as a psychotherapy has been held subject to consumer fraud
protections. Often, fraudulent actions go unpunished when a service provider
claims that he or she did not know that a service was not effective, or when a
victim cannot prove that he or she was harmed. In consumer fraud, it’s possible
for misleading information to be given simply by the omission of important
points (such as the positions of the American Psychiatric Association and
American Psychological Association about homosexuality). With respect to
psychotherapy, it would be fraudulent to omit information about possible adverse
events associated with a treatment—and professional therapists are supposed to provide
informed consent documents communicating such matters to a client before
treatment begins.

This does seem like a legal breakthrough-- but can we expect that the “conversion
therapy” lawsuit will lead to successful suits in cases where children were
treated with Attachment Therapy, or received chelation therapy for autism? I am
afraid these events won’t happen tomorrow. The thing is, the legislation
prohibiting “conversion therapy” for minors, and the suit brought by the
S.P.L.C. against JONAH, were supported by well-organized, politically-savvy,
and well-funded adults whose own same-sex orientations made them deeply
concerned about the harm done by the treatment. Those adults garnered the
support of professional organizations and put their skills and energies into
preparing legislation and lawsuit. In a time of increasing commitment to civil
rights for people of all orientations, this was relatively easy to accomplish,
given the abilities of those who contributed.

But who will do the same tasks to bring legal
redress for children and adolescents who have been ill-treated in the name of
psychotherapy? If they are minors, they can’t bring suit themselves, but
instead are dependent on the parents or guardians who made the decision to seek
the harmful treatment—adults who are likely to ignore any resulting problems or
to blame the child for them. When minors pass the age of 18, and “age out” of
the services they have been receiving, they find themselves struggling to make
a life-- often with little educational
background—as time hurries by and statutes of limitations quickly begin to
apply. When they get older and manage to settle down a bit, they find that it
is too late for them to sue. Or, alternatively, they want to forget all about
what happened to them and try to make up for the time they lost if they were in
residential treatment. These victims have no support group or organized
representatives who will act for them or help them act.

Other alternative psychotherapies for children are
consumer fraud, just as “conversion therapy” is. But how will we bring that fact home to
those who advocate potentially harmful treatments? Without an answer to that
question, it seems that Judge Barsio’s admirable decisions must be received
with slightly modified rapture.

About Me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Mercer

Jean Mercer has a Ph.D in Psychology from Brandeis University, earned when that institution was 20 years old (you do the math). She is Professor Emerita of Psychology at Richard Stockton College, where for many years she taught developmental psychology, research methods, perception, and history of psychology. Since about 2000 her focus has been on potentially dangerous child psychotherapies, and she has published several related books and a number of articles in professional journals.
Her CV can be seen at http://childmyths.blogspot.com/2009/12/curriculum-vitae-jean.mercer-richard.html.